Controversy.....G'wan, G'wan, G'wan, G'wan.....

Rules are fantasic and everyone should adhere to them 100%. Cheating is sad, particulary as none of our livelihoods depend on a win or a place....

...so what about rule interpretation? That means not doing the obvious, but trying to think of ways to apply the rules which give an advantage. I 'spose i'm thinking of the Brabham fan car of the 1970's.....they exploited a loophole which was successful, tolerated for the year, then outlawed (fine). It may or may not have been advantageous for long, but it certainly was innovative and broke the mould, was interesting and allowed imagination to flow. Much of the follwing years technology used the less radical bits.....

Looking at the Belchford rules i see a dose of 'fun' to be had there, and the potential of building some potentially interesting carties (....tho also potentially dreadful!) I reckon that the reward for success here will (should) be banning for the next year; no probs there...that in itself forces further innovation

I've seen other forms or racing where the field was (afterr a year or two) essentially identical, varying only by livery and ££££ spend.....great to thus see relative driver ability, but a bit b..b..b..b..boring

Guess i'm a split-arse liberal at heart tho'...i also agree with follwing the spirit of the rules as well as the letter...help!

Rules are tricky. There is a natural tendency when you're writing them to try to specify absolutely everything, but I think that's both a mistake and also totally futile. My personal approach is to encourage innovation by making the rules as open to interpretation as possible.

The hardest thing about rules is enforcing them. People put a lot of effort into building their carties, and it'd be hard to disqualify someone because their pride and joy that they have been building for the previous 6 months is just 2 inches too long or 6lbs too heavy. That's why a lot of events seem to be adopting the idea of allowing anything that is basically safe to take part regardless of how well it complies to the letter of the rules, but only those that comply fully are eligible for the silverware.

I think that's a reasonable compromise that allows flexibilty and ingenuity to florish while keeping things fair and fun, but still allowing event organisers the final say so they can disallow carts on safety grounds.

That's why scrutineering should be down a few weeks before the event whenever possible, to avoid nasty surprises on race day and to give teams an opportunity to rectify any concerns that the organisers might have.

Safety is the absolute bottom line, and the cartie must be "fit for purpose" for the course. What is considered "fit for purpose" will vary from one course to the next, with slower and less demanding courses needing far less stringent test of brakes and steering. Organisers have to make their own decision about what is appropriate for their own situation.

Guess that's sensible. Safety is a good determinant. Only contradiction I see is that if someone who would seek to very consciously and accurately exploit the rules for all and any loopholes and interpretations, it is should be on the awareness that ALL the specified rules are met....and being 2' too long or 6lbs too heavy has to be....inexcusable! Not wishing to sound slightly-to-the-right-of-Ghengis Khan here, but you can't have it both ways.
I guess to balance things out, for new entrants, travellers etc, more tolerance; you can't turn someone away easily. It's only fer fun.....